Fox News team release: What is the message?
By Walid Phares
August 29/06
The release in Gaza of Fox News journalist Steve Centanni and camera man Olaf
Wiig, kidnapped as of August 14 by a group calling itself "Holy Jihad Brigade"
raises a number of salient issues related to the kidnapping and release:
1) "We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint," Centanni told FOX News.
"Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a
lot of good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because
they had the guns, and we didn't know what the hell was going on."
Such a statement raises a number of points. First it is not unusual that
Jihadists groups would force hostages to convert to Islam. But at the same time
it hasn't been a systematic behavior. Over the past 25 years, Jihadist
organizations, cells and captors -including al Qaida, Hezbollah, Laskar Jihad,
Jemaa Islamiya, Salafi Combat group, etc have taken hostages. In many cases the
Jihadists either asked the hostages or forced them to convert. But in other
cases they haven't. Statistically, most hostages who have been executed were not
asked to convert, while those who were released were either asked if they wished
or in some cases were told that it would be better for them to do so. Obviously,
hostages -especially if they weren't evangelists - would accept the conversion
as a mean for securing liberation or at least physical security. But there were
cases of Priests, Evangelists and Christian local leaders, who were executed
after they refused to convert. These cases didn't receive the publicity received
by media or secular Western citizens’ hostages.
However, there were cases where hostages were released without being forced or
even asked to convert.
The question emanating from these hostage-conversions is two fold: a) is it
considered as legitimate one in the eyes of Islamic law? Under international
law, any forced conversion under threat is null and void. Under Sharia law a
similar verdict could be issued by an Islamic court who would argue that
conversion by force is not acceptable (La ikrah fil deen). But Jihadi
interpretation may argue that the conversion is standing with the immediate
consequence that reverting back from the new religion is punishable by death.
This would play a considerable role in intimidating the ex hostages, and would
allow the Terrorist group to call for sanctions in the future against the
journalists.
2) The group calls itself "The Holy Jihad Brigade." As in previous cases, this
may not be a new organization but a name given by the kidnappers or those who
ordered the kidnapping for this particular operation. There have been many names
that appeared after a Terrorist operation or hostage taking and never heard from
again in Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, and Kenya to name few cases. A Palestinian
security official told AP that "Palestinian Authorities had known the identity
of the kidnappers from the start." The source said "the name was a front for
local militants." While indeed the name was created as a front for a local
operation, the question is who ordered it? Hamas-led Government Prime Minister
Ismael Hanieh said "it is not al Qaeda, and there is no al Qaeda in Gaza." In
fact al Qaeda presence exists in Gaza and it was reported in many previous
reports not denied by the Hamas cabinet. However it would be less likely that al
Qaeda was behind the operation because of the modus operandi of the group: Such
as sending a video to al Jazeera, and as in some cases in Iraq or Pakistan,
execution could have ensued. So, who could be behind the kidnapping and the
release? There are strong possibilities that the Hamas organization (which is in
power) could be behind the operation. Why?
3) Hamas has been complaining about the US support to Israel, but more
importantly about Washington's pressures to shut down all economic support to
the US-listed Terrorist organization. In many speeches by Haniya and Hamas
spokespersons, they blamed the US for the "sanctions" against their Government.
It is widely known in the Palestinian territories that the financial conditions
of Hamas' Government is worsening, allowing their opponents in Fatah to
criticize them. An unofficial hostage operation against journalists affiliated
with a media network perceived as close to the US Administration and very
critical of Hamas, could have been authorized by the security agencies of Hamas
as a way to send a message to Washington. Haniya may not want to cut it
completely with the United States yet, knowing that the Mahmoud Abbas forces can
still take advantage of the situation, hence the authorization for a "local"
group to perform a Jihadi-like abduction and release to send a message
Westbound.
4. Another analysis takes the regional situation into account and factors in the
Syrian and Iranian regimes that have a strategic alliance with Hamas with Tehran
funding the group and Damascus hosting its headquarters. Requests from either
one or the other regimes for such an operation in Gaza are not unlikely. Since
the Tehran embassy incidents both Iran and Syria demonstrated that they do not
implicate themselves in hostage taking on their own soil. For two decades at
least, Jihadist groups allied to the two regimes have taken, released, and some
times executed hostages in Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian territories by
proxies.
5. Is that a signal for a developing trend? It could well be. During the
Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon, CNN and other media complained from
intimidation and control of the reports by Hezbollah. And as Iran and Syria are
mobilizing for confrontation with the international community over the nuclear
crisis with Ahmedinijad and on the international forces with Assad, Western and
international media should be careful in their planning for coverage in Jihadi
controlled areas.
**Dr Walid Phares is a Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of
Democracies and the author of Future Jihad
August 29, 2006